Synergistic Effect of Probiotic and Enzyme on Physical Evaluation and Consumers Preference of Broiler Chickens
Asian Journal of Research in Animal and Veterinary Sciences,
The objective of the study was to determine physicochemical activities and consumer’s preference of broiler chickens fed probiotic and enzyme-based diet. A total of Twenty (20) refrigerated (4 ± 1°C) whole carcass broiler chickens were used for this study. 5 broiler chickens from 4 dietary treatments were used to perform the comparison of physicochemical and sensory analyses in a Completely Randomized Design. T1- Control treatment (without Enzyme nor Probiotics); T2- Probiotic based diet; T3- Enzyme based diet and T4- Probiotic + Enzyme based diet. The broiler chickens were obtained from an experimental site at the Poultry Division of the National Veterinary Research Institute, Vom. Chicken samples were acquired then slaughtered and taken to the laboratory properly packed in cool boxes with ice. Breast samples were used for physical and sensory analyses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA at α=0.05. There were no significant differences in both the pH of raw and cooked meat. The cooking loss of breast meat showed no difference in all the dietary treatment. The same trend was observed for the cooking loss for drumstick meat. Cooking loss in thigh meat had a significant difference with T1 having the highest cooking loss. The product yield was significantly higher in meat from T3 and had the least in T1. It was also observed that meat from T2 had higher thermal shortening with less shortening obtained in T3. For boiled chicken meat, no difference was observed in colour, flavor, and juiciness while no difference was also observed in colour, aroma, flavor, juiciness and overall acceptability of grilled chicken meat. For boiled chicken, tenderness was higher in meat from broiler chicken fed T1 and T4 with less tenderness obtained in T3 while the grilled chicken meat tenderness was significantly higher in meat from broiler chicken fed T3. In conclusion, since there was no significant difference in most of the parameters measured, it shows adding probiotic and enzyme in the diet of broiler chickens does not have significant effect on the meat quality measures but shows significant effect on consumers’ preference when compared with meat from broiler chickens fed a control diet without probiotic and enzyme with chickens fed probiotics and enzyme. There is no need adding probiotic and enzyme in the diet of broiler chickens except in breaking high fibre diet and promoting wellness of the chickens.
- physicochemical properties
- consumer’s preference and broiler chicken
How to Cite
Griggs J, Jacob JP. Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2005;14(4):750-756.
Khan R, Naz S. The applications of probiotics in poultry production. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2013;69(3):621-632.
Ignatova M, Sredkova V, Marasheva V. Effect of dietary inclusion of probiotic on chicken performance and some blood indices. Biotechnol Anim Husb. 2009;25: 1079–1085.
Sarangi NR. Effect of dietary supplementation of prebiotic, probiotic, and symbiotic on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Vet World. 2016;9:313–319.
Hossain EM, Kim GM, Lee SK, Yang CJ. Growth performance: Meat yield, oxidative stability and fatty acid composition of meat from broilers fed diet supplemented with a medicinal plant and probiotics. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2012;25:1159–1168.
Saleh AA. Effect of feeding mixture of Aspergillus probiotic and selenium nano-particles on growth, nutrient digestibility, selected blood parameters and muscle fatty acid profile in broiler chickens. Anim. Sci. Pap Rep. 2014;32:65–79.
Lima ACF, Macari M, Pizauro Ju´ nior JM, Malheiros EB. Atividade enzima´tica pancrea´tica de frangos de corte alimentados com dietas contendo enzima ou probio´ tico. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2002;4:187–193.
Simbaya J, Slominski BA, Guenter W, Morgan A, Campbell LD. The effects of protease and carbohydrase supplementation on the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry: In vitro and in vivo studies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996;61:219–234.
Zanella I, Sakomura NK, Silversides FG, Figueiredo FGA, Pack M. Effect of enzyme supplementation on broiler diets based on corn and soybeans. Poult.Sci. 1999;78: 561–568.
Gitoee A, Janmohammadi H, Taghizadeh A, Rafat SA (2005). Effects of a multi-enzyme on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens fed corn-soybean meal basal diets with different metabolizable energy levels. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2015 43(3).
A.O.A.C. Association of official analytical chemistry official methods of analysis of AOAC international (17th Ed.). MD, USA; 2000.
Mahendrakar NS, Khabade US, Dam NP. Studies on the effect of fatting on carcass characteristics and quality of meat from Bannur lambs. J. Food Sci. Tech. 1988;25: 225-231.
Weglarz A. Meat quality defined based on pH and colour depending on cattle category and slaughter season. Czech J Anim. Sci. 2010;55:548-556.
Teodora Popova. Effect of probiotics in poultry for improving meat quality. Current Opinion in Food Science. 2017,14:72–77.
Ivanovic S, Pisinov B, Maslic-Strizak D, Savic B, Stojanovic Z. Influence of probiotics on quality of chicken meat. Afr J Agric Res. 2102;7:2191-2196.
Zheng A, Luo J, Meng K, Li J, Zhang S, Liu G, Cai H, Bryden WL, and Yao B. (2015) Proteome changes under pin improved meat quality and yield of chickens (Gallus gallus) fed the probiotic Enterococcus faecium. Genomics, 15:1167.
Pelicano, E. R. L., Souza, P. A de., Souza, H. B. A de., Oba, A., Norkus, E. A., Kodawara, L. M. and Lima, T. M. A de (2003). Effect of Different Probiotics on Broiler Carcass and Meat Quality, Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science v.5 / n.3 / 207 – 214. ISSN 1516-635X.
Liu Y, and Stouffer J.R. (1995) Pork carcass evaluation with an automated and computerized ultrasonic system. Journal of Animal Science; 73:29-38
Gray J.I, Gomaa E.A, Buckley D.J.(1996) Oxidative quality and shelf life of meats. Meat Science; 43:111-123.
Abstract View: 285 times
PDF Download: 257 times